Analyze Diet
Quarterly journal of experimental physiology (Cambridge, England)1989; 74(1); 1-6; doi: 10.1113/expphysiol.1989.sp003234

Factors determining the digestive efficiency of the domesticated donkey (Equus asinus asinus).

Abstract: Factors determining the digestive efficiency of donkeys were studied in animals fed either a low quality roughage (wheat straw: 77.1% neutral detergent fibre, 2.8% crude protein) or a high quality forage (alfalfa hay: 47.5% neutral detergent fibre, 22.7% crude protein). The neutral detergent fibre (NDF) intake when fed wheat straw was 1693 +/- 268 g animal-1 day-1, 10% higher than when fed alfalfa hay. Digestive coefficient of NDF and acid detergent fibre (ADF) when fed wheat straw amounted to 50.9 +/- 4.9 and 42.0 +/- 4.1% respectively. NDF and ADF apparent digestibilities and mean retention times (37.7 +/- 1.7 and 36.4 +/- 3.2 h respectively) were not significantly different (P greater than 0.05) between the two diets. The donkey appears to digest cell wall constituents as efficiently as the Bedouin goat when on low quality roughage, but less efficiently when fed alfalfa hay. Its energy digestibility is, however, as high as that reported for the Bedouin goat. The donkey's high energy digestibility is related to its capacity to digest soluble food components more efficiently than the ruminant. The mean retention time in the donkey is shorter than in the Bedouin goat and is consistent with its capacity to compensate for a lower quality diet by increasing its intake rate. Recycling of urea in donkeys maintained on wheat straw amounted to 75.5 +/- 13.0% of the entry rate. A decrease in the rate of renal urea filtration, coupled with an increase in the fraction reabsorbed, increased the retention of nitrogenous waste and permitted recycling of nitrogen into the gut.
Publication Date: 1989-01-01 PubMed ID: 2717700DOI: 10.1113/expphysiol.1989.sp003234Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
  • Comparative Study
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Research Support
  • U.S. Gov't
  • Non-P.H.S.

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research article focuses on exploring factors that determine the digestive efficiency of donkeys. By testing the impact of two different diets, the study identifies how donkeys digest food sources and how this may compare against other animals like the Bedouin goat.

Testing Dietary Differences

  • The study revolved around feeding the donkeys two distinct diets – a low-quality roughage (wheat straw) and a high-quality forage (alfalfa hay). Each of these presents varying measures of fibre and protein components.
  • The wheat straw diet registered a higher neutral detergent fibre (NDF) intake compared to the alfalfa hay. The former proved to have a higher digestive coefficient of both NDF and acid detergent fibre (ADF).
  • The digestive efficiencies signified by NDF and ADF apparent digestibilities and mean retention times were found to be relatively similar for both diets, lacking statistically significant differences.

Comparisons to the Bedouin Goat

  • The study also compared the donkey’s digestive efficiency to that of the Bedouin goat. When fed low-quality roughage, the donkey was observed to digest cell wall constituents as efficiently as the goat. However, when provided with high-quality forage such as alfalfa hay, the donkey’s digestive efficiency reduced.
  • Despite this, the energy digestibility of the donkey remained as high as the Bedouin goat.

Energy Digestibility and Intake Rate

  • The high energy digestibility in donkeys is observed to be an outcome of their capacity to digest soluble food components more efficiently than ruminants such as goats.
  • The donkey’s capacity to compensate for the dietary quality by adjusting its intake rate was also noted. It showed a shorter mean retention time compared to the Bedouin goat, which corresponds with this intake rate adjustment.

Recycling of Urea

  • In donkeys maintained on a wheat straw diet, the recycling of urea was found to account for a large portion of the entry rate.
  • The mechanism behind this involved a decrease in the renal urea filtration rate and an increase in the fraction reabsorbed, which allowed for increased retention of nitrogenous waste and enabled nitrogen recycling into the gut.

Cite This Article

APA
Izraely H, Choshniak I, Stevens CE, Demment MW, Shkolnik A. (1989). Factors determining the digestive efficiency of the domesticated donkey (Equus asinus asinus). Q J Exp Physiol, 74(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1113/expphysiol.1989.sp003234

Publication

ISSN: 0144-8757
NlmUniqueID: 8206873
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 74
Issue: 1
Pages: 1-6

Researcher Affiliations

Izraely, H
  • Department of Zoology, George S. Wise Center for Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Israel.
Choshniak, I
    Stevens, C E
      Demment, M W
        Shkolnik, A

          MeSH Terms

          • Animal Feed
          • Animal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena
          • Animals
          • Body Weight
          • Digestion
          • Energy Metabolism
          • Female
          • Perissodactyla / physiology
          • Urea / analysis

          Citations

          This article has been cited 5 times.
          1. Tassone S, Fortina R, Valle E, Cavallarin L, Raspa F, Boggero S, Bergero D, Giammarino M, Renna M. Comparison of In Vivo and In Vitro Digestibility in Donkeys.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Nov 12;10(11).
            doi: 10.3390/ani10112100pubmed: 33198168google scholar: lookup
          2. Liu LL, Zhou XL, Yang HJ, Chen R. Effect of Dietary Forage/Concentrate Ratio on Nutrient Digestion and Energy and Protein Metabolism in Adult Donkeys.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Jun 12;10(6).
            doi: 10.3390/ani10061025pubmed: 32545612google scholar: lookup
          3. De Palo P, Maggiolino A, Albenzio M, Casalino E, Neglia G, Centoducati G, Tateo A. Survey of biochemical and oxidative profile in donkey foals suckled with one natural and one semi-artificial technique.. PLoS One 2018;13(6):e0198774.
            doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198774pubmed: 29874272google scholar: lookup
          4. Huang J, Zhao Y, Bai D, Shiraigol W, Li B, Yang L, Wu J, Bao W, Ren X, Jin B, Zhao Q, Li A, Bao S, Bao W, Xing Z, An A, Gao Y, Wei R, Bao Y, Bao T, Han H, Bai H, Bao Y, Zhang Y, Daidiikhuu D, Zhao W, Liu S, Ding J, Ye W, Ding F, Sun Z, Shi Y, Zhang Y, Meng H, Dugarjaviin M. Donkey genome and insight into the imprinting of fast karyotype evolution.. Sci Rep 2015 Sep 16;5:14106.
            doi: 10.1038/srep14106pubmed: 26373886google scholar: lookup
          5. Smith DG, Pearson RA. A review of the factors affecting the survival of donkeys in semi-arid regions of sub-Saharan Africa.. Trop Anim Health Prod 2005 Nov;37 Suppl 1:1-19.
            doi: 10.1007/s11250-005-9002-5pubmed: 16335068google scholar: lookup